--for the first drill of any sort done at this institute, this was an excellent way to start--you were very strong on the basic understanding of the card. Next steps are 1) be more authoritative and demanding, really assert that you know what you are talking about with your voice and posture etc 2) make sure you explain WHY the card is good, in addition to just explaining the warrants of the evidence itself. Why should people trust that evidence etc.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice
Confidence, start strong, how have you shown these things (cite your evidence or your causal claims—this evidence comparison is very good later on there)—don’t repeat yourself on the extinction questions at the end
2nd time—good work with the evidence, get going bigger—still, a bit repetitive.
Practice Round 1 (Baxter)
FORCE, be strong
You don’t need to explain the evidence after you read it
You are tall, you need to put ur stuff somewhere safe
Use the case against the disad
Watch out for a double turn
You need to get to the case debate faster, you cant win the round without an aff
Excellent cross-x, you understand this shit very well
Rather than theoretically separate, you should just say “this argument is new, you shouldn’t consider it in the debate”—way too much time here
Really nice job of comparing the starvation impacts with the risk of the disad
Practice Round 3 (Baxter)
Mark when you move to the next offcase “next off is politix”—you want to speed up, you can get through more of this argument very quickly if you are pushing yourself a bit more, you also want to highlight these cards down a bit
Don’t try to get them to concede in cross-x, they aren’t gonna give up, you need to find a way to make progress without that alone happening
Try not to use any prep for the 1nr, you should be prepping during 2nc prep and during the entire 2nc
Nice job making the evidentiary distintions that you are using about the fish escape stuff—you want to do it economically too, so say our evidence is better 2 reaons, then what they are
Make sure you don’t lose the forest here, you need to think big picture on the disad question especially
Mini Rebuttal Redo
Your about 80% to where you need to be, you are making some good arguments explaining why the aff is preferable to the CP, but right now, that's all being done as an underview, try moving it to an overview. This will really help to guide your rebuttal to make it clearer how your arguments fit into the round as a whole. Make sure your rebuttal is painting a picture of what the world of the aff looks like and what the world of the neg looks like and why your world is better. This necessitates breaking away from the line by line some.
Advocacy Drill Friday 8/8
--nice job including all the stuff that you need on a cp
--make your theory argument on condo more efficient
--try to find some analytical solvency deficits as well
Practice Round 8/9 (Liz)
Your ethics card in the 1AC is good. You should consider adding framework arguments or more, other impact prioritization arguments to this aff if you find yourself wanting to collapse to this ethics card or ethics framing - particularly against negative strategies like this one that just read one off politics. You could read a bunch of generic ethics cards, deontology, or whatever you want. But I think that's something about this aff that you're not capitalizing on as much as you could. I think you're spreading yourself a little thin in the 1AR because you're trying to both cover the line by line and extend the whole aff. It's fine for the 1AR to do line by line after the block, but don't also try to extend every card in the aff. You can accomplish this by selecting a few cards in the aff to extend and/or utilizing the parts of the aff you think you're most ahead on to wield against the neg. For instance, extend your ethics card and then contextualize it in terms of the politics disad -- "they're not answering this effectively, which means that even if they win a 100% risk of politics, you still vote aff because equal distribution of food is prioritized even if it means we go extinct".
Practice Round 4 (Baxter)
Faster and louder, pay attention to that in your drills
Very good answers to the cx questions regarding the ethics argument, you need to make sure that you are answering the question and then stopping, but good.
Make sure that you are reading the evidence “tag, cite, evidence”
You need to extend some additional arguments on the disad, we really need to have some offense especially
Explain why these ethics matter. What happens if we don’t have ethics, what would the world look like and why would this one be better
Make more use of your 1ac and 2ac evidence, what do they prove and why, do you have enough time to read this much new evidence
Don’t repeat yourself on the contradiction argument
Rebuttal Redo (Liz)
You should insert into your vocabulary when going for the K the phrase "our links are disads to the permutation" so that not only is the permutation not possible, but even if it is possible, it would not be desirable because similar to the aff, the permutation would cause extinction. You are extending the right cards on the K, but be sure to contextualize what they mean for the world of the aff, for instance, it's not just that the aff doesn't solve but that extinction is inevitable in a world of the aff. You are correct that we can't have ethics if we're dead but you can also add that extinction is unethical.
Rebuttal Redos Monday 8/11 (Baxter)
--more argumentative on the overview comparison, why does it outweigh (is it probability? Is it more)
--no link argument: no political capital
--a bit more convincing on your “regulations are something they can do” argument—think about the ethos ddrill this morning
--you prolly want to extend offense in the 2ar as well
Everyone needs to work on better distinguishing between the tags and the warrants. Also, no one was very effectively using their time, everyone was spending almost the whole speech just on defense, and only 1-2 sentences on the offense. Make sure we focus on the offense and the interaction of positions. Also, make sure that the questions we ask are more to the point, while the trick questions are fun to ask, you should be asking relevant questions as well. Lastly, in the rebuttals, we all need to get out of the weeds and explaining our arguments at a more meta-level, I should actually be hearing words like "offense, defense, probability, etc." Don't just say you are winning an argument, explain what winning the argument means for the round.
Impact Drill--8/12
--nice job structuring the speech, maybe explain more of the story as to why cyber terror leads to nuclear war
--good job comparing the impact criteria—make sure you are also saying the problems with their claims
--I still want the explanation to be more specific, but nice job being forceful about magnitude claims
--I really dig the timeframe delineation, nice job making things different and helping further
--EXCELLENT job of using the timeframe to check back against magnitude
Topicality Drill--8/13
--nice work extending the interpretation—make sure you don’t do too much on the overview itself
--make sure you mention the argument that you are responding to, you have it there and in the right order
--great use of the evidence
--don’t get repetitive
Practice Round 8/13 (Liz)
You've gotten a lot better at separating your cards (tag, cite, warrant, NEXT, tag, cite, warrant), but you're letting yourself get pushed around in cross ex on your politics disad. You need an answer (or just insert a card into your shell) to the question about the NSA reform bill being a reduction of NSA powers and how a bill that reduces the scope of their authority can stop cyber terror. In addition, your disad should turn the case in the shell (how would a cyberterror attack affect our ability to do offshore wind?). You have good offense and defense on case. You should make the pitch of your voice higher when you read cards, because it's easier to go faster when your voice is higher. You don't need to do a weird Mickey Mouse falsetto, but when you raise the pitch, your vocal chords are closer together, so you can push less air through to make them vibrate (it takes less energy for you to make sound).
Rebuttal Redos--8/14 (Baxter)
--don’t say we are going to show, just say they have no offense to compare with our extinction level impact
--all we have to win is that we have jobs, they concede this internal link in cx
--nice job using the minolo evidence
--we solve a stronger internal link
Practice Debate 11—8/15 (Baxter)
--I have nothing to say about your 1nc, it was mostly well done, It is clear that you have gotten much better at this delivery
--nice job with some of those eviience comparisons in th 1nc, tho I think you can be nmore effiecitn in elivering them
--good use of the evidence at this point
Practice Debate 12--8/15 (Baxter)
--2ac needs to spend more time on the cp or have a really big blow off attitude to make it not a big deal
--I know you haven’t had this aff long, but still try to do the stuff you wanted to do regarding evidence comparisons, knowing your solvency evidence, etc.
--2ar overview is good, but could use some connection to the specific terms of what you solve and they don’t, maybe contextualize it as a risk of a solvency deficit
--what evidence do you have that you want judges to look at for this solvency claim?
-isnt there a timeframe solency deficit on these other advantages
Extending evidence--:30 second drill
--for the first drill of any sort done at this institute, this was an excellent way to start--you were very strong on the basic understanding of the card. Next steps are 1) be more authoritative and demanding, really assert that you know what you are talking about with your voice and posture etc 2) make sure you explain WHY the card is good, in addition to just explaining the warrants of the evidence itself. Why should people trust that evidence etc.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice
Confidence, start strong, how have you shown these things (cite your evidence or your causal claims—this evidence comparison is very good later on there)—don’t repeat yourself on the extinction questions at the end
2nd time—good work with the evidence, get going bigger—still, a bit repetitive.
Practice Round 1 (Baxter)
FORCE, be strong
You don’t need to explain the evidence after you read it
You are tall, you need to put ur stuff somewhere safe
Use the case against the disad
Watch out for a double turn
You need to get to the case debate faster, you cant win the round without an aff
Excellent cross-x, you understand this shit very well
Rather than theoretically separate, you should just say “this argument is new, you shouldn’t consider it in the debate”—way too much time here
Really nice job of comparing the starvation impacts with the risk of the disad
Practice Round 3 (Baxter)
Mark when you move to the next offcase “next off is politix”—you want to speed up, you can get through more of this argument very quickly if you are pushing yourself a bit more, you also want to highlight these cards down a bit
Don’t try to get them to concede in cross-x, they aren’t gonna give up, you need to find a way to make progress without that alone happening
Try not to use any prep for the 1nr, you should be prepping during 2nc prep and during the entire 2nc
Nice job making the evidentiary distintions that you are using about the fish escape stuff—you want to do it economically too, so say our evidence is better 2 reaons, then what they are
Make sure you don’t lose the forest here, you need to think big picture on the disad question especially
Mini Rebuttal Redo
Your about 80% to where you need to be, you are making some good arguments explaining why the aff is preferable to the CP, but right now, that's all being done as an underview, try moving it to an overview. This will really help to guide your rebuttal to make it clearer how your arguments fit into the round as a whole. Make sure your rebuttal is painting a picture of what the world of the aff looks like and what the world of the neg looks like and why your world is better. This necessitates breaking away from the line by line some.
Advocacy Drill Friday 8/8
--nice job including all the stuff that you need on a cp
--make your theory argument on condo more efficient
--try to find some analytical solvency deficits as well
Practice Round 8/9 (Liz)
Your ethics card in the 1AC is good. You should consider adding framework arguments or more, other impact prioritization arguments to this aff if you find yourself wanting to collapse to this ethics card or ethics framing - particularly against negative strategies like this one that just read one off politics. You could read a bunch of generic ethics cards, deontology, or whatever you want. But I think that's something about this aff that you're not capitalizing on as much as you could. I think you're spreading yourself a little thin in the 1AR because you're trying to both cover the line by line and extend the whole aff. It's fine for the 1AR to do line by line after the block, but don't also try to extend every card in the aff. You can accomplish this by selecting a few cards in the aff to extend and/or utilizing the parts of the aff you think you're most ahead on to wield against the neg. For instance, extend your ethics card and then contextualize it in terms of the politics disad -- "they're not answering this effectively, which means that even if they win a 100% risk of politics, you still vote aff because equal distribution of food is prioritized even if it means we go extinct".Practice Round 4 (Baxter)
Faster and louder, pay attention to that in your drills
Very good answers to the cx questions regarding the ethics argument, you need to make sure that you are answering the question and then stopping, but good.
Make sure that you are reading the evidence “tag, cite, evidence”
You need to extend some additional arguments on the disad, we really need to have some offense especially
Explain why these ethics matter. What happens if we don’t have ethics, what would the world look like and why would this one be better
Make more use of your 1ac and 2ac evidence, what do they prove and why, do you have enough time to read this much new evidence
Don’t repeat yourself on the contradiction argument
Rebuttal Redo (Liz)
You should insert into your vocabulary when going for the K the phrase "our links are disads to the permutation" so that not only is the permutation not possible, but even if it is possible, it would not be desirable because similar to the aff, the permutation would cause extinction. You are extending the right cards on the K, but be sure to contextualize what they mean for the world of the aff, for instance, it's not just that the aff doesn't solve but that extinction is inevitable in a world of the aff. You are correct that we can't have ethics if we're dead but you can also add that extinction is unethical.Rebuttal Redos Monday 8/11 (Baxter)
--more argumentative on the overview comparison, why does it outweigh (is it probability? Is it more)
--no link argument: no political capital
--a bit more convincing on your “regulations are something they can do” argument—think about the ethos ddrill this morning
--you prolly want to extend offense in the 2ar as well
Practice Round 7 Monday 8/11 (Steve)
Practice Round Tuesday 8/12 (Kehl)
Everyone needs to work on better distinguishing between the tags and the warrants. Also, no one was very effectively using their time, everyone was spending almost the whole speech just on defense, and only 1-2 sentences on the offense. Make sure we focus on the offense and the interaction of positions. Also, make sure that the questions we ask are more to the point, while the trick questions are fun to ask, you should be asking relevant questions as well. Lastly, in the rebuttals, we all need to get out of the weeds and explaining our arguments at a more meta-level, I should actually be hearing words like "offense, defense, probability, etc." Don't just say you are winning an argument, explain what winning the argument means for the round.Impact Drill--8/12
--nice job structuring the speech, maybe explain more of the story as to why cyber terror leads to nuclear war
--good job comparing the impact criteria—make sure you are also saying the problems with their claims
--I still want the explanation to be more specific, but nice job being forceful about magnitude claims
--I really dig the timeframe delineation, nice job making things different and helping further
--EXCELLENT job of using the timeframe to check back against magnitude
Topicality Drill--8/13
--nice work extending the interpretation—make sure you don’t do too much on the overview itself
--make sure you mention the argument that you are responding to, you have it there and in the right order
--great use of the evidence
--don’t get repetitive
Practice Round 8/13 (Liz)
You've gotten a lot better at separating your cards (tag, cite, warrant, NEXT, tag, cite, warrant), but you're letting yourself get pushed around in cross ex on your politics disad. You need an answer (or just insert a card into your shell) to the question about the NSA reform bill being a reduction of NSA powers and how a bill that reduces the scope of their authority can stop cyber terror. In addition, your disad should turn the case in the shell (how would a cyberterror attack affect our ability to do offshore wind?). You have good offense and defense on case. You should make the pitch of your voice higher when you read cards, because it's easier to go faster when your voice is higher. You don't need to do a weird Mickey Mouse falsetto, but when you raise the pitch, your vocal chords are closer together, so you can push less air through to make them vibrate (it takes less energy for you to make sound).Rebuttal Redos--8/14 (Baxter)
--don’t say we are going to show, just say they have no offense to compare with our extinction level impact
--all we have to win is that we have jobs, they concede this internal link in cx
--nice job using the minolo evidence
--we solve a stronger internal link
Practice Debate 11—8/15 (Baxter)
--I have nothing to say about your 1nc, it was mostly well done, It is clear that you have gotten much better at this delivery
--nice job with some of those eviience comparisons in th 1nc, tho I think you can be nmore effiecitn in elivering them
--good use of the evidence at this point
Practice Debate 12--8/15 (Baxter)
--2ac needs to spend more time on the cp or have a really big blow off attitude to make it not a big deal
--I know you haven’t had this aff long, but still try to do the stuff you wanted to do regarding evidence comparisons, knowing your solvency evidence, etc.
--2ar overview is good, but could use some connection to the specific terms of what you solve and they don’t, maybe contextualize it as a risk of a solvency deficit
--what evidence do you have that you want judges to look at for this solvency claim?
-isnt there a timeframe solency deficit on these other advantages